And I'd probably be even more boring -- imagine that. By the way, RealClimate has a couple of articles on how accurate Gore's treatment of science in the movie was; and they find errors. The funny thing is, the real errors are not listed in the 11 inaccuracies of the British court case.
The basic inconvenient truth is that the world is facing pressing environmental problems. Global warming is one of them. It can make other more critical problems worse in the longer term. None of that comforts me. For me, alarmism equates with inducing a panic. In a crisis situation, panic results minimally in error and inefficiency, and maximally in enhanced danger and potential disaster. So there's no place for alarmism. There is a place for clear-eyed, unbiased realism. The global "we" has to determine with cool-headed collectiveness what the effective risk reduction, risk mitigation, and risk elimination strategies are.
A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases.
They are incorrect.
It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
To which I respond: if the NAS assessment was correct regarding the Mann hockey stick, then Don Easterbrook cannot state this with any degree of quantitative certainty. Furthermore, the global warming of the past century was ~0.6 C. Yes, that's not large. Add 1.8 C this century, just above the 1-1.5 C range you quoted favored by skeptics, is 3 times that rate. 1.8 C plus 0.6 C is 2.4 C in two centuries. Is that still a "small swing"?
Finally, to finish this regarding sea level rise in coming centuries:
"Ultimately, global warming is a moral problem rather than a purely scientific or economic one. We are enriching ourselves by the use of fossil fuels in ways that degrade and imperil the future of our children, grandchildren and all future generations.The more I think about it, the situation is like that of the people who launched the anti-slavery campaign in the late 1700’s. One of the group’s leaders, William Wilberforce, is a great hero of mine. When they began their efforts, people were getting rich by degrading the lives of the slaves brought over from Africa to work on the plantations in the West Indies and America. It must have seemed hopeless at first, faced by the opposition of corrupt parliaments and wealthy merchants and planters. Yet, these Abolitionists changed the world by the force of their moral argument and I believe that moral argument will win the day and lead to solutions for global warming."
Our inability to stamp out socialism globally is a moral issue. OTOH, turning scientific questions into ‘moral’ ones is pure Elmer Gantry hucksterism, backwoods preacher stuff and utter guff.
More of Gore’s guff - polar bears:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070918122840.aspx
If the polar bears are struggling because of melting ice, they’re certainly not showing it. According to a study reported in the September 3 Telegraph (U.K.), the polar bears are thriving.
“There aren’t just a few more bears,” said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals, to the Telegraph. “There are a hell of a lot more bears.”
Let me make this point. I don’t really see that it matters if GW is occurring. Why?
1) If it is, and it is natural (IOW, not man), then we simply must adapt.
2) If it is, regardless of the cause, and it is happening as quickly as the doom sayers claim, then we are SOL.
3) If it is, and man is causing it, there is no way mankind can change enough things to the degree necessary to make any difference whatsoever.
4) If it is not, then 1 through 3 don’t matter anyway.
Disclaimer- I don’t believe anything of significance is happening, and that what is happening is inevitable anyway.
Nonetheless, what I believe in that regard is not even relevant because of my 4 points above.
“Furthermore, the global warming of the past century was ~0.6 C. Yes, that’s not large. Add 1.8 C this century, just above the 1-1.5 C range you quoted favored by skeptics, is 3 times that rate. 1.8 C plus 0.6 C is 2.4 C in two centuries. Is that still a “small swing”?”
The direct effect of CO2 forcing is only around 1C/doubling or so. the rest is positive feedback effects due to water vapor and clouds.
Do those numbers include the recent science that determined experimentally the cloud feedback effects from great water vapor? To wit:
http://www.uah.edu/news/newsread.php?newsID=875
Those estimates are not reliable if they do not. And as you know, cloud cover is the least reliable aspect of climate science... There is no reason to call 1.0-1.5C a ‘low range’ when in fact it may be the high range of actual 2000-2100 changes.
Further, the 0.6 warming is due to 40% increase in CO2, so a similar 80% increase in CO2 from 2000 to 2100 (viz 5.35 logC1/C0 effect) would only be another 1.2C, not 1.8C.
These swings of under 2C total are indeed smaller than the cited paleo-climate shifts observed by early man.
“By the way, RealClimate has a couple of articles on how accurate Gore’s treatment of science in the movie was; and they find errors. The funny thing is, the real errors are not listed in the 11 inaccuracies of the British court case.” LOL, again with the circularity of citing RealScience. That’s like citing the NYTimes ombudsman on whether the NYTimes is biased.